Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees

From:

Chris Mason

Subject:

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] [PATCH] arch speedups on big trees

Date:

Wed, 28 Jan 2004 14:20:44 -0500

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 13:40, Tom Lord wrote:
> > From: Chris Mason <address@hidden>
>
> Boring "point-by-point" stuff omitted but I think we can agree about:
>
[ 1-6 ]
> I think that will give you 90% of what you want and it also truly
> kills pristines (though introduces in-tree libraries).
>
This all makes good sense.
> It's also a nifty plan because it's (finally!) an occaision where we
> can probably wind up _removing_ more code from tla than is being added
> :-)
>
;-)
> add-pristine can, indeed, take a --link option. Seems pretty obscure
> to me but there's no harm in it. Perhaps that adds up to 95% of what
> you want?
>
Since libraries can be linked, and libraries would eventually kill
pristine trees, there's no need to add code to pristine trees that you
would just kill later on.
> And, please give up on "maintaining an inventory", reverse-mapping or
> no, in project trees. It just plain won't work.
>
I'll make you a deal, add 15,000 files any project tree that you work on
constantly through the day. Never change these files aside from when
you add them, and add them inside any directory structure you like.
Use it for two weeks running basic commands like commit/changes and
pulling in changes from other branches. At least once pull in 50 or
more changesets from another tree. At the end of all of that, I'm
pretty confident you'll think arch isn't usable on big trees.
I'm sure there are better ways to make it faster than my current code,
but I haven't seen a lot of other ideas discussed.
> Does that make sense to you? Would you like to work on any of that?
I did a lot of the first patch over xmas vacation, this month and now
most of feb are extremely tight for me. As much as I'd like to code it,
I'm too far behind on other projects right now.
-chris